NCAA Issues/Scandals/Corruption

#2
Forgottonia
Welcome to the NCAA Issues/Scandals/Corruption thread

California will allow college athletes to profit from endorsements beginning 2023
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-30/college-athlete-endorsement-deals-ncaa-california-law
My guess is the the NCAA will ultimately have to bend and negotiate something on this. Other states are sure to follow and either it becomes a very expensive lawsuit they will likely lose or member schools will eventually be forced out by state laws. The state of Illinois will surely be passing a bill of their own.
 
#3
This seems like it would just become an instant fiasco. So if I'm a super-rich UCLA booster, for example, what's to stop me from just buying the best basketball prospects by paying them a bunch of money to be a spokesperson for my product?
 
Likes: eczerwonka
#4
Mad Scientist
Arizona, USA
This seems like it would just become an instant fiasco. So if I'm a super-rich UCLA booster, for example, what's to stop me from just buying the best basketball prospects by paying them a bunch of money to be a spokesperson for my product?
Adam Silver has said that the NBA will likely be ending the one-and-done rule in the near future (I think it was expected to end no earlier than 2021). When that happens, all of the "best basketball prospects" will just head to the NBA. I think as long as one-and-done quality players are free to head to the NBA, then you end up with many fewer NCAA prospects who would command large sums and instead you have a much larger pool who would command much less.
 
#5
Don't have an answer but this will make recruiting more of a fiasco than it already is which says a lot.
 
#6
Chambana
Adam Silver has said that the NBA will likely be ending the one-and-done rule in the near future (I think it was expected to end no earlier than 2021). When that happens, all of the "best basketball prospects" will just head to the NBA. I think as long as one-and-done quality players are free to head to the NBA, then you end up with many fewer NCAA prospects who would command large sums and instead you have a much larger pool who would command much less.
If the top 1-5 players all go pro, then 5-10 would become the new 1-5 & would provide a similar advantage to a team as the original top 5.

I don’t see the one & done rule changing alleviating this problem much.
 
#7
Glenview, IL
My guess is the the NCAA will ultimately have to bend and negotiate something on this. Other states are sure to follow and either it becomes a very expensive lawsuit they will likely lose or member schools will eventually be forced out by state laws. The state of Illinois will surely be passing a bill of their own.
Looks like you are correct, a bill has already been introduced in Illinois:

Illinois legislator introduces bill to let college athletes be paid, saying he wants to stay competitive with California
 
#8
Mad Scientist
Arizona, USA
If the top 1-5 players all go pro, then 5-10 would become the new 1-5 & would provide a similar advantage to a team as the original top 5.

I don’t see the one & done rule changing alleviating this problem much.
That's assuming those "new top 5" have the same star power as the actual top 5 and would be the same money drivers. That's not likely true.
 
Likes: Clemillini21
#9
St. Peters MO
Adam Silver has said that the NBA will likely be ending the one-and-done rule in the near future (I think it was expected to end no earlier than 2021). When that happens, all of the "best basketball prospects" will just head to the NBA. I think as long as one-and-done quality players are free to head to the NBA, then you end up with many fewer NCAA prospects who would command large sums and instead you have a much larger pool who would command much less.
I thought they were talking about a '2 or none' rule meaning you can go straight to the NBA but if you go to college you have to stay 2 years.
 
Likes: BananaShampoo
#10
That's assuming those "new top 5" have the same star power as the actual top 5 and would be the same money drivers. That's not likely true.
Winning is what drives the money. Better players typically means more winning. If this law comes to pass I fully expect it will result in a bidding war.
 
#11
I have come to believe that the new more urgent impetus behind paying players is a desire to inoculate the blue bloods from any sanctions from the recent cheating scandals. If we authorize the paying of players, that mitigates against the death penalty or other serious sanctions for those teams that have been cheating. I don't think that the NCAA will stand in the way of paying athletes for their name, image, etc., so they can avoid having to destroy Kansas, Louisville, Arizona, etc., because a few of their players got paid under the table, if for no other reason.
 
Likes: Halloweenie
#12
Mad Scientist
Arizona, USA
That would be an odd position for California to take considering that the only relevant school is UCLA, which has not been implicated and honestly hasn't been much of a blue blood in recent years.
 
#13
That's assuming those "new top 5" have the same star power as the actual top 5 and would be the same money drivers. That's not likely true.
Couldn't it also happen on a state or local level? Is there something to prevent an owner of say a bunch of car dealerships or an insurance company paying a very good, but way short of a national star, a more modest fee for promotions or endorsements?
 
#14
So the Pac 12 just got awarded a distinct recruiting advantage over any other state when this kicks in....make $$$ while in college to help family out, or make a hasty decision on your part to turn PRO to early to try and make $$$? The kid that is a "tweener" between 1st/2nd round or not will naturally look towards the states schools that will allowing this.

I don't see how the NCAA cannot conform and make this uniform to keep recruiting on a more "level" playing field....lol I know it's not really level now.
 
Likes: geneseo
#15
I see the PAC10 adopting the same set of rules and other conferences following suit. My question is can the conference set parameters on it such as max amts. etc. Not sure how the rule plays out but would love to see the NCAA eat crow along with their huge salaries. At least some if not all those monies currently go to them I believe.
 
#16
So the Pac 12 just got awarded a distinct recruiting advantage over any other state when this kicks in....make $$$ while in college to help family out, or make a hasty decision on your part to turn PRO to early to try and make $$$? The kid that is a "tweener" between 1st/2nd round or not will naturally look towards the states schools that will allowing this.

I don't see how the NCAA cannot conform and make this uniform to keep recruiting on a more "level" playing field....lol I know it's not really level now.
The law is only for California. If players did get paid, they would still be violating current NCAA rules, therefore the schools would have to forfeit all of their games.
 
#17
Mad Scientist
Arizona, USA
The law is only for California. If players did get paid, they would still be violating current NCAA rules, therefore the schools would have to forfeit all of their games.
That is only true if literally nothing else changes between now and 2023. I think it is unlikely that nothing else changes. California has the most people, most TV sets, and the largest economy of any state in the country. If the NCAA plays hardball and says they won't budge and the California players who participate are ineligible, then they will lose a lot of money even just from California.

Now consider the ripple effect this could have:
  • California just gave other states cover to pass similar laws. Let's say that New York, for example, follows suit. Now you have the first and third largest state economies involved. That's even more money and control they lose.
  • The Pac-12 is now in an untenable position if 25% of its member institutions are paying their players while the other 75% are obeying status quo. They will either have to allow this conference-wide or else eject the California schools (which, again, would cost the Pac-12 a gigantic sum of money due to lost TV sets and lost interest due to matchups). The NCAA is therefore facing one of their Power 5 conferences being wholly non-compliant and losing the TV money on the entire West Coast.
The bottom line is that there is a lot of this story left to be written and this very well may be the economic domino that causes sweeping change at the NCAA.
 
#19
That is only true if literally nothing else changes between now and 2023. I think it is unlikely that nothing else changes. California has the most people, most TV sets, and the largest economy of any state in the country. If the NCAA plays hardball and says they won't budge and the California players who participate are ineligible, then they will lose a lot of money even just from California.

Now consider the ripple effect this could have:
  • California just gave other states cover to pass similar laws. Let's say that New York, for example, follows suit. Now you have the first and third largest state economies involved. That's even more money and control they lose.
  • The Pac-12 is now in an untenable position if 25% of its member institutions are paying their players while the other 75% are obeying status quo. They will either have to allow this conference-wide or else eject the California schools (which, again, would cost the Pac-12 a gigantic sum of money due to lost TV sets and lost interest due to matchups). The NCAA is therefore facing one of their Power 5 conferences being wholly non-compliant and losing the TV money on the entire West Coast.
The bottom line is that there is a lot of this story left to be written and this very well may be the economic domino that causes sweeping change at the NCAA.
I don't disagree with this, but no matter how things shake out, California was not given a recruiting advantage.
 
#20
I don't disagree with this, but no matter how things shake out, California was not given a recruiting advantage.
Maybe not with intent, but you don't think a teenage kid may look at this and see future potential possibilities?
 
#21
I see the PAC10 adopting the same set of rules and other conferences following suit. My question is can the conference set parameters on it such as max amts. etc. Not sure how the rule plays out but would love to see the NCAA eat crow along with their huge salaries. At least some if not all those monies currently go to them I believe.
If i'm the conference leaders, I get together with the other P5 leagues and tell the NCAA to go fly a kite if they don't want to go along, we'll leave the NCAA a smoking pile of waste! There is time for that too, since the California law doesn't go into effect until 2023.
 
Likes: sacraig
#22
Maybe not with intent, but you don't think a teenage kid may look at this and see future potential possibilities?
If the NCAA changes their policy, there is no advantage. If the NCAA reaffirms their policy, it means no bowl games, no playoffs, no post season play, and actually no wins. What's the point of paying them if they can't even win a game? Would other schools even play them? Will television networks want to pick up what would essentially be exhibition games? Does the NCAA say they can't be part of of the association, since they aren't following the bylaws? Lots of questions, but not seeing how any answers will benefit the California schools.
 
#23
Mad Scientist
Arizona, USA
If the NCAA changes their policy, there is no advantage. If the NCAA reaffirms their policy, it means no bowl games, no playoffs, no post season play, and actually no wins. What's the point of paying them if they can't even win a game? Would other schools even play them? Will television networks want to pick up what would essentially be exhibition games? Does the NCAA say they can't be part of of the association, since they aren't following the bylaws? Lots of questions, but not seeing how any answers will benefit the California schools.
What will end up happening, most likely, is that those schools, which can't opt out, would have to form their own league. It would be a very hairy situation.
 
#24
If i'm the conference leaders, I get together with the other P5 leagues and tell the NCAA to go fly a kite if they don't want to go along, we'll leave the NCAA a smoking pile of waste! There is time for that too, since the California law doesn't go into effect until 2023.
Worked for the SEC.
 
#25
If i'm the conference leaders, I get together with the other P5 leagues and tell the NCAA to go fly a kite if they don't want to go along, we'll leave the NCAA a smoking pile of waste! There is time for that too, since the California law doesn't go into effect until 2023.
ALL P-5 conferences together would have the clout and the time to do this...good idea for the NCAA to "have" to fold if that were the case. However, the conference powers that be would all have to agree as a unit to possibly forego billions to take this stance? Not sure you could get that many blow hards to agree on anything?